What is more signifikant: av ROI or total ROI?

[MightyMarc]

Hi FTR community

started playing SNGs 2-3 months ago. Sharkscope shows me my total ROI and my average ROI (38%) and I don't know which one of them is more significant. Do the other numbers matter in any way?


Do monthly ROIs matter in any way? Does a increasing monthly ROI indicate an upswing (and so is followed by a downswing)?


Just don't know where I stand what numbers are suitable for measuring my development.


Thanks for all upcomming answers.

Marc

[taipan168]

Firstly, congratulations on your results, these are very good figures!

The thing about variance and SNGs is that you can only really be sure you're a winning player after 500 SNGs and it takes many thousands to get an accurate picture of what your "overall" ROI is. By this time most players have moved up levels so the clock starts again.

Because of this I would ignore the monthly ROI since your sample size in any one month is so small as to be meaningless. The only figures I would look at in the above chart are total ROI and ITM %, and even then I'd focus more on playing your best game and making good decisions rather than on your results (although it's hard to do).

Come post some hands/tourneys in the SNG forum, we're a friendly bunch over there.

[Robb]

Sharkscope shows me my total ROI and my average ROI (38%) and I don't know which one of them is more significant. Do the other numbers matter in any way?

Mathematically, the avg. ROI is troublesome. Total ROI is simple to understand: the sum of all winnings divided by total entry fees paid + rake. And total ROI is a weighted average already. So avg. ROI is an average of averages, which tends to distance you from the data involved in the calculations.

Total ROI over a given time period makes more sense to me.

[MightyMarc]

First of all I would like to thank you for your replies.

...and even then I'd focus more on playing your best game and making good decisions rather than on your results (although it's hard to do).

Since I am a tight aggressive player it is hard for not to play result orientated. Once I am short stacked I can't do much more than to try to survive which means I have to watch what the other shorties are doing. So in my eyes the result is the only thing that counts. Deep stacked I can concentrate on opponent's gameplay but with something around 10-15 big blinds I don't feel comfortable to do anything I would like to do (cr/push).

Total ROI over a given time period makes more sense to me.

Well I think I will have to watch the figures again after 500 entries and again after 1k entries.

Marc

[taipan168]

...and even then I'd focus more on playing your best game and making good decisions rather than on your results (although it's hard to do).

Since I am a tight aggressive player it is hard for not to play result orientated. Once I am short stacked I can't do much more than to try to survive which means I have to watch what the other shorties are doing. So in my eyes the result is the only thing that counts. Deep stacked I can concentrate on opponent's gameplay but with something around 10-15 big blinds I don't feel comfortable to do anything I would like to do (cr/push).

I think you have misunderstood me here. What I meant was that because of the "luck" aspect of poker, whether you win or lose a hand is not a good indication of whether you made the right decision. It has nothing to do with whether you play tight or loose, passive or aggressive.

Couple of examples:

1. 6 players left, blinds 100/200, you're in the BB with AKs and a 1600 stack, all fold to the SB with 3000 who raises to 500. SB had been raising very aggressively recently so you instashove over, he calls with TT and you lose the flip. The fact that you lost doesn't mean you made a bad decision!

2. 4 players left, blinds 200/400 ante 25, you're second stack with 4500 and AQs, CO and button fold and the same aggressive SB with 5000 chips shoves all-in. You call and he shows 22. You spike an A on the flop and he doesn't catch a 2 on the turn or river, you win. This was an atrocious call and the fact you won doesn't make this a good one.

[MightyMarc]

1st example I agree with you.

2. 4 players left, blinds 200/400 ante 25, you're second stack with 4500 and AQs, CO and button fold and the same aggressive SB with 5000 chips shoves all-in. You call and he shows 22.

Since I mostly play 2 table SNGs (18 entrants) I would call this shove many times (I am already itm - some cold hands and I am out of order). 11 big blinds short handed are no big deal and of course my goal is to finish at 1st place. In a single table SNG I would wait for a shortie to disappear before I risk my stack against the big stack.
But maybe I am wrong and my point of view will lead me into a substantial loss of value.

Marc

[taipan168]

2. 4 players left, blinds 200/400 ante 25, you're second stack with 4500 and AQs, CO and button fold and the same aggressive SB with 5000 chips shoves all-in. You call and he shows 22.

Since I mostly play 2 table SNGs (18 entrants) I would call this shove many times (I am already itm - some cold hands and I am out of order). 11 big blinds short handed are no big deal and of course my goal is to finish at 1st place. In a single table SNG I would wait for a shortie to disappear before I risk my stack against the big stack.
But maybe I am wrong and my point of view will lead me into a substantial loss of value.

You're right - I was referring to 1-table SNGs in my example, I'm not sure about 2-table SNGs, I guess calling is the right move because you are ITM already.

I guess the point I was illustrating is that you can't use the results of a hand (or a tourney) as a reliable indicator of whether you made the right decision or not.